Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA14769 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:28:57 +0100 Message-ID: <C4C20D0AEF0BF84B90CFEA0105EEB0BD0159C197@selene.shu.ac.uk> From: "Price, Ilfryn" <I.Price@shu.ac.uk> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re Re Grammar Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:20:02 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> the variety of vocalisation we can make, and other primate species
Interesting. I would have perhaps said just the opposite, that we are
not that different, nor others as limited, as we might think.
Has there really been a study of the disparity and the greater range of
vocalizations possible in homo sapiens, compared with, for example, some
of the gibbons?
- - Wade>
That is what Elaine M claims in The AA Hypothesis. The evidence I have seen (limited to documentaries about the people teaching other
primates to communicate) is that the limit (including gibbons) is vocalisation. As I recall some have developed greater range of expression
using cards and symbols.
And BTW yes Vincent it is an example of the cooling fins to wings argument. Bigger brains, and birth difficulties, in this line of
reasoning, came along later as the language / brain size feedback loop kicked in for some fairly obvious reasons.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 07:43:01 BST